[Editorial] ‘Sea of Japan’ falls short

Posted on : 2011-08-09 10:49 KST Modified on : 2011-08-09 10:49 KST

In connection with the issue of international labeling of the East Sea, the United States and United Kingdom recently submitted a formal opinion to the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) arguing that the name “Sea of Japan” should be used alone. Ultimately, they are siding once again with Japan. This means yet another thwarting of South Korea’s diplomatic efforts to highlight the injustice of using only the name “Sea of Japan” and demand that the name “East Sea” also be displayed. It is a disappointing development. We hope our government takes this as an opportunity to conduct a thorough reexamination of the South Korean strategy that led to this failure.

The name “Sea of Japan” became internationalized after it was listed for the first time in an IHO document on maritime boundaries, based on claims from founding and member nation Japan in 1929, during the time of the Japanese Empire. South Korea became an IHO member only in 1957, and it was only in the 1970s that it began raising objections to the singular use of the name “Sea of Japan.” Calls for the simultaneous use of “East Sea” have been issued in earnest since 1992, just after the end of the Cold War.

It is not right to use the name of one country alone for the standard international name of a body of water surrounded by four different countries, namely North Korea, South Korea, Russia, and Japan. Japan claims that this is already convention, but it is a recent development that accompanied a history of imperial incursions, and there are almost no cases of the term “Sea of Japan” appearing on world maps prior to the modern era. In 1974, the IHO recommended that cases where different names were used for geographic features shared by two or countries should first be discussed by the countries in question, and that the different names should be used simultaneously when an agreement could not be reached. A 1977 resolution by the United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names likewise recommended this as a general rule for international map-making.

But since the modern era, and since the publication of the IHO report on maritime boundaries in particular, the name “Sea of Japan” has enjoyed exclusive rights on international maps. Much of the blame for this lies with Japan’s superior diplomatic and lobbying prowess and the practices of major powers fixated on vested interests. While it is impossible to change this state of affairs in a single stroke, vigorous government and private efforts during this century have led to a steady increase in the number of instances where the name “East Sea” is also listed, rising from the 2 to 3 percent range to over 28 percent as of 2007.

It is a matter of concern just what the impact on this current will be from the decision by the United States, which has also made a significant contribution to stirring up the Dokdo issue, to once again side with Japan. If the reason has to do with South Korea’s recent approach or attitude, then the problem is serious. We hope the question of whether simultaneous listing of the name “East Sea” is an appropriate response strategy will be submitted to reconsideration. The name “East Sea” may be a familiar one to South Koreans, but countries like China and Vietnam also refer to bodies of water like the Yellow Sea and South China Sea as the “East Sea.” This generality works against efforts to gain international support, as it could be easily dismissed as a general name for bodies of water located to the east of a particular country. Japan has seized on this weak spot. In addition to active diplomatic efforts, we also hope to see redoubled efforts toward an alternative like “Blue Sea.” The current situation is not acceptable.

 

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]